Today's post is a guest book review. Meaning that I actually have not read this book even though it is on my "to read" list. Instead, a supportive friend offered to read the book and write down her opinion of it and I jumped at the chance to have 1. a guest contributor and 2. someone else's opinion.
The book is called A Promise to Ourselves: Fatherhood, Divorce, and Family Law. It was written by Alec Baldwin. In case you aren't familiar with why Alec Baldwin would be writing about this topic, I suggest you read up on his personal struggles with the biased family law court system here.
So, without further commentary - Thank you, Janet, for your book review:
A Promise to Ourselves: Fatherhood, Divorce, and Family Law
In A Promise to Ourselves: A Journey Through Fatherhood and Divorce, Alec Baldwin puts a celebrity face on dirty secrets which few know, and even fewer understand, that comprise America's current family law system. Contorted to favor custodial parents--usually women--and structured to perpetuate expensive, legal conflict, the only winners in ongoing custodial wars are the paid professionals associated with the case. The biggest losers are children over which wars are being fought, followed by non-custodial parents. Hopeful non-custodial parents usually enter the family court system, perhaps having heard a whiff of what hell might be coming, confident that decisions are made based on the facts of the case, fairness and what is best for the child. A Promise to Ourselves dispels that naivete and then breaks it all down.
Mr. Baldwin uses anecdotes of his own experience and that of other non-custodial parents--usually men--to expose the systemic dysfunction that allows one parent to hold a child hostage from the child's other parent, often beggaring the non-custodial parent in the process. However, these memoirs are much more than a cathartic exercise. Supported by studies, and an expert interview, Mr. Baldwin goes deeper to address Parental Alienation Syndrome and provide strategic advice to non-custodial parents fighting for their child's fundamental right and developmental need to have healthy relationships with both parents.
It's all spelled out: well-funded legal opponents having no incentive to seek win-win solutions; custodial parents who violate court orders with impunity; courts that do not enforce their own orders or effectively penalize parents that violate orders; courts that do not closely evaluate testimony that is contradictory, reflecting a conflict of interest, or containing an obvious lie when it favors custodial parents; custodial parents that actively alienate their children from their non-custodial parents; parents that rely on false abuse charges as a legal strategy and more.
I recommend this book to anyone, but especially to non-custodial parents who are entering or are currently in the family court system. I couldn't put it down, reading it in a day, because it was so truthful and resonated so well with experiences that are known to me. It contains all of the wisdom that comes from hindsight and is the guidebook that many non-custodial parents wish they had at the beginning of their legal journeys
Showing posts with label father's rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label father's rights. Show all posts
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Short sabbatical
I apologize for my short sabbatical over the past couple of days. My husband is home from Afghanistan for 2 weeks and I've been all consumed with his return.
However, I don't want this blog to go totally by the wayside. So, I am reprinting here an article that was part of what spurred me to start this blog. I'd be interested to hear your thought on the article. One of the first comments I received on this when I reprinted it on my Facebook account was from a stepmother married to a man with two daughters. She made the observation that every father she has come across fighting to see his children knows exactly who and what they are fighting for.
I appreciated the thought. Why is it that "parents" are lumped together in the family court system. The reality is that more often than not the father just wants an equal amount of time with his children. If courts were more fair wouldn't there be less fighting and arguing? Less appeals for more visitation? Less casualties in the children?
Fathers continue to fight for more time because they are so poorly represented. Make the bias disappear and so does so much of the "warring" between parents.
Childhood Casualties of the Family Courts
By Tracy McVeigh
The Observer
When Paul returned home from a six-month tour of duty in Afghanistan, he found his key no longer fitted his front door.
"My wife had changed the locks on the house I was paying the mortgage on, and my kids were inside with her new bloke," he said. "I can't tell you what I felt, trying to make sense of it all. It was a bad dream. She had a lawyer lined up to talk about money and they seemed stunned when I said I wanted contact.
"I had kids because I wanted to be a dad. I am a dad, not a sperm donor."
His little boys were then aged three and 18 months. He hasn't seen them for almost two years and struggles on with his legal battle.
This week, the consultation period will close on the family justice review, commissioned in part because of money (the present legal system costs the state more than £800m a year), but also intended to make the process quicker, simpler and fairer.
"Fathers and grandfathers regularly tell us that they do not feel well served by the current system," admits the Ministry of Justice in its introduction to the review, which will be heard by a panel of experts and chaired by pensions watchdog David Norgrove. Final recommendations are due by autumn 2011.
Many professionals, including Resolution, a collective of almost 6,000 lawyers across the country who are committed to nonconfrontational divorce, hope it will usher into law the concept of shared parenting, and back mediation, not courtrooms, as the place to settle disputes over children.
It was in a speech to Families Need Fathers last Sunday that Sir Nicholas Wall, president of the family division of the high court and Britain's most senior family judge, warned that parents harm children by using them as "the battlefield, the ammunition" during divorce proceedings.
Families Need Fathers is at the forefront of a shift in tone in fathers' rights – away from the notorious stunts of Fathers 4 Justice, which involved grown men dressed as superheroes unfurling banners on public monuments, towards a professional lobbying approach, deploying reasoned argument and concern for the child.
A measure of its mainstream status is that David Blunkett and novelist Louis de Bernières are among the group's patrons.
"He [Wall] was bang on the button," said Liz Edwards, vice-chair of Resolution, who as well as being a family lawyer is a trained mediator who favours a "round the kitchen table" approach for couples who are splitting up. "We find you can stop the process becoming a huge conflict if you give people information," she said. "They won't even talk about custody and courts. They will be focusing on the children. Mediation can take the heat out of a time when people are in a lot of pain, make people see they need to focus on the child.
"A lot of people cannot afford to litigate over children and end up having to sort things out all by themselves and do it well. Very wealthy people who have nothing to lose financially go through all their issues in the courts.
"Ultimately, it's the children who will look at their parents and the job they did and they can be very critical. Parents have to realise that what they are doing at this point may well decide their future relationship with their children."
She said it was impossible to ignore the part that fathers' pressure groups had played in highlighting issues previously hidden behind the secretive doors of the family courts.
"Fathers being more involved has brought new problems. Some children now have to live with parental conflict, instead of living with the sense of rejection that came when the father walked away.
"We have to decide what we want for our children. Mediation is not about rights as much as responsibilities to the children. It's asking people, 'can you put your children first?' "
The government estimates that one in four children has separated or divorced parents. Despite all the evidence that children thrive best when they enjoy the support and love of two parents, only about 11% of children from broken homes will go on to spend equal amounts of time with each parent.
A significant number of fathers, some estimate as many as 40%, will within two years of the split lose all contact with their children. Previously this had been seen as a sign of male fecklessness, but now it is also being recognised that dads are being pushed away, not only by the residual conflict with ex-partners, but also by a legal system that works against them maintaining relationships with their children.
"A lot of our members are not men with great careers but ordinary men who go out to work in order to bring home money for their families. When they lose that family, everything breaks down for them. We have had five suicides so far this year," said Mike Kelly, spokesman for Real Fathers For Justice, distinct from Fathers 4 Justice.
"It was seen as comical and that wasn't the message we wanted out there. Fathers and grandparents were suffering. It had been an in-your-face campaign, but it was time to move on and reflect the seriousness of the issue that was seeing us getting suicidal phone calls from fathers in a spiral of depression that they couldn't see a way out of."
At the time, he says, "there was no political will to stop the gravy train running", but the group had helped to shine a "public light" into the family courts. "But we can't take credit until change has happened, and judges are vastly behind the times and parents are being forced in front of them like criminals. All they've done is fall out of love. One isn't guilty and the other innocent."
Ian Julian, 49, is one of the tiny percentage of fathers in the UK to have won a shared residency court order for his son, now aged 16. But that was pared away into alternate weekends when his ex-wife sent their son to boarding school against Julian's wishes. He has had to move four times to follow the house moves of his former wife.
"When I first went to a lawyer, she told me I had no chance of anything, but I was prepared to go to 100 lawyers to find one who would take my case," he said.
Julian now works as a "McKenzie friend", someone who gives moral support in court to a litigant who can't afford legal representation, and is a trustee of Families Need Fathers.
"I've heard a judge call a man 'possessive' for wanting more than two hours a week, and others make 'no contact' orders on hearsay evidence," he said. "I've known mothers taken back to court for ignoring contact orders, but nothing is done. Bad behaviour isn't just tolerated, it's encouraged. Some of the judges I have sat in front of have traditional values along the lines of a woman's place being in the home. But it's not the experience of the average British family and a father seeing a child once every two weeks isn't a meaningful relationship."
For modern fathers, expecting and expected to be far more involved with childcare than perhaps their own fathers were, it can come as an enormous shock when they hit a legal system running on a whole different set of presumptions.
"One weekend in a fortnight is what's commonly awarded and it's not a meaningful time," said Adrienne Burgess, director of research at the Fatherhood Institute. "It allows fathers to drift out of their children's lives. If we want to keep men in children's lives we might have to work a lot harder. High-quality relationships with their mother and their father is what is successful for children after separation. Having one without the other doesn't help them much."
But Burgess makes the point that shared parenting requires more than just more enlightened judges. "It's interesting that in the past 30 years, men's involvement with their children has gone up 800-fold, but there are fewer father-headed lone-parent families than ever as it's overwhelmingly mums who get the children.
"The courts may prioritise mothers to a ridiculous extent, but it's also going to be hard for us women to give up. True shared parenting means not getting your own way, which is tough. When the child might not run to you first at the school gate, that's hard," said Burgess.
Without doubt the present system seems to be serving no one very well and certainly not men like Paul. He received an up-to-date photograph of his children a few months ago, posted anonymously. "I'd like to think it was my wife," he said. "She knows we both love them like nobody else ever can."
"There's this emptiness, this utter loneliness, and you ask, What have I done? Why has this happened? The despair of going to the door that was your home, the door to this thing that locked away the crap of the world and having to knock and hearing their laughter inside... And this life that was yours a week ago. That is their home, your home, this is your family, and now you have to knock and ask can you come in. And when you're with your children, it's not like, 'Great, I've got three hours with my children', it's 'There's a second gone, there's another second gone' – and all the time it's the going, it's not the being-with. This is the thing that destroys people."
Author Louis de Bernières after his partner Cathy Gill left taking the couple's two children, Robin, five, and Sophie, two
"It was really dreadful. The worst thing, practically, was finding the house so quiet because it was always so full of laughter and rampaging and stampeding. The emotional desolation is hard to describe. There were many times when I felt suicidal."
Writer Tim Lott
"Parting from my wife, Sarina, and children Ruby and Cissy in 1999, left me with too many agonising memories to count. The lonely weekends in the parks alone with other sad single dads. The lies I told my children in order to reassure them – 'Isn't it wonderful – you're going to have two homes instead of just one'. The memory that sticks in my mind is of Ruby, then seven years old, running after my car screaming for me to come back after my designated weekend was over. That image – of her running down the street after me, as I stared at her diminishing image in my rear-view mirror – still replays in my head."
Writer William Leith, who is now back with his partner
"I remember the weekends. Going to pick my son up on a Saturday morning. I remember walking down the drive of the house where my son lived, where my ex lived, where I had lived. The anxious moments on the doorstep. The sudden, terrifying thought that I might have come at the wrong time, or on the wrong day.
"My son! There was always a rush of emotion, a balloon expanding in my chest. As a father, when you are separated from your child, you feel vulnerable, even if you see him a lot. It's the separation. It's the sense of not belonging.
"You stand on the doorstep, and you hear your son's voice, and you feel two things, the tremendous rush of love for your son existing inside the hollow pang of separation."
However, I don't want this blog to go totally by the wayside. So, I am reprinting here an article that was part of what spurred me to start this blog. I'd be interested to hear your thought on the article. One of the first comments I received on this when I reprinted it on my Facebook account was from a stepmother married to a man with two daughters. She made the observation that every father she has come across fighting to see his children knows exactly who and what they are fighting for.
I appreciated the thought. Why is it that "parents" are lumped together in the family court system. The reality is that more often than not the father just wants an equal amount of time with his children. If courts were more fair wouldn't there be less fighting and arguing? Less appeals for more visitation? Less casualties in the children?
Fathers continue to fight for more time because they are so poorly represented. Make the bias disappear and so does so much of the "warring" between parents.
Childhood Casualties of the Family Courts
By Tracy McVeigh
The Observer
Fathers still have the odds stacked against them when it comes to custody battles in the family court system, but are warring parents forgetting what and who they are fighting for?
When Paul returned home from a six-month tour of duty in Afghanistan, he found his key no longer fitted his front door.
"My wife had changed the locks on the house I was paying the mortgage on, and my kids were inside with her new bloke," he said. "I can't tell you what I felt, trying to make sense of it all. It was a bad dream. She had a lawyer lined up to talk about money and they seemed stunned when I said I wanted contact.
"I had kids because I wanted to be a dad. I am a dad, not a sperm donor."
His little boys were then aged three and 18 months. He hasn't seen them for almost two years and struggles on with his legal battle.
In the past, public sympathy may well have rested with the court, assuming it was doing its best for the children. But now there is growing evidence that family law has spectacularly failed to keep up with the changing role of men within the home and that children are suffering as a result. Judges are accused of stereotyping, making a legal presumption in favour of the mother and awarding meagre access rights to dads.
With the maturing of the "men's movement" into more child-centred lobbying and support groups, and with rising numbers of divorce lawyers moving into mediation work and away from adversarial courtrooms, there is a growing understanding of the raw deal many fathers – and children – have been getting from the secretive British family court system.
"Fathers and grandfathers regularly tell us that they do not feel well served by the current system," admits the Ministry of Justice in its introduction to the review, which will be heard by a panel of experts and chaired by pensions watchdog David Norgrove. Final recommendations are due by autumn 2011.
Many professionals, including Resolution, a collective of almost 6,000 lawyers across the country who are committed to nonconfrontational divorce, hope it will usher into law the concept of shared parenting, and back mediation, not courtrooms, as the place to settle disputes over children.
It was in a speech to Families Need Fathers last Sunday that Sir Nicholas Wall, president of the family division of the high court and Britain's most senior family judge, warned that parents harm children by using them as "the battlefield, the ammunition" during divorce proceedings.
Families Need Fathers is at the forefront of a shift in tone in fathers' rights – away from the notorious stunts of Fathers 4 Justice, which involved grown men dressed as superheroes unfurling banners on public monuments, towards a professional lobbying approach, deploying reasoned argument and concern for the child.
A measure of its mainstream status is that David Blunkett and novelist Louis de Bernières are among the group's patrons.
"He [Wall] was bang on the button," said Liz Edwards, vice-chair of Resolution, who as well as being a family lawyer is a trained mediator who favours a "round the kitchen table" approach for couples who are splitting up. "We find you can stop the process becoming a huge conflict if you give people information," she said. "They won't even talk about custody and courts. They will be focusing on the children. Mediation can take the heat out of a time when people are in a lot of pain, make people see they need to focus on the child.
"A lot of people cannot afford to litigate over children and end up having to sort things out all by themselves and do it well. Very wealthy people who have nothing to lose financially go through all their issues in the courts.
"Ultimately, it's the children who will look at their parents and the job they did and they can be very critical. Parents have to realise that what they are doing at this point may well decide their future relationship with their children."
She said it was impossible to ignore the part that fathers' pressure groups had played in highlighting issues previously hidden behind the secretive doors of the family courts.
"Fathers being more involved has brought new problems. Some children now have to live with parental conflict, instead of living with the sense of rejection that came when the father walked away.
"We have to decide what we want for our children. Mediation is not about rights as much as responsibilities to the children. It's asking people, 'can you put your children first?' "
The government estimates that one in four children has separated or divorced parents. Despite all the evidence that children thrive best when they enjoy the support and love of two parents, only about 11% of children from broken homes will go on to spend equal amounts of time with each parent.
A significant number of fathers, some estimate as many as 40%, will within two years of the split lose all contact with their children. Previously this had been seen as a sign of male fecklessness, but now it is also being recognised that dads are being pushed away, not only by the residual conflict with ex-partners, but also by a legal system that works against them maintaining relationships with their children.
"A lot of our members are not men with great careers but ordinary men who go out to work in order to bring home money for their families. When they lose that family, everything breaks down for them. We have had five suicides so far this year," said Mike Kelly, spokesman for Real Fathers For Justice, distinct from Fathers 4 Justice.
"It was seen as comical and that wasn't the message we wanted out there. Fathers and grandparents were suffering. It had been an in-your-face campaign, but it was time to move on and reflect the seriousness of the issue that was seeing us getting suicidal phone calls from fathers in a spiral of depression that they couldn't see a way out of."
At the time, he says, "there was no political will to stop the gravy train running", but the group had helped to shine a "public light" into the family courts. "But we can't take credit until change has happened, and judges are vastly behind the times and parents are being forced in front of them like criminals. All they've done is fall out of love. One isn't guilty and the other innocent."
Ian Julian, 49, is one of the tiny percentage of fathers in the UK to have won a shared residency court order for his son, now aged 16. But that was pared away into alternate weekends when his ex-wife sent their son to boarding school against Julian's wishes. He has had to move four times to follow the house moves of his former wife.
"When I first went to a lawyer, she told me I had no chance of anything, but I was prepared to go to 100 lawyers to find one who would take my case," he said.
Julian now works as a "McKenzie friend", someone who gives moral support in court to a litigant who can't afford legal representation, and is a trustee of Families Need Fathers.
"I've heard a judge call a man 'possessive' for wanting more than two hours a week, and others make 'no contact' orders on hearsay evidence," he said. "I've known mothers taken back to court for ignoring contact orders, but nothing is done. Bad behaviour isn't just tolerated, it's encouraged. Some of the judges I have sat in front of have traditional values along the lines of a woman's place being in the home. But it's not the experience of the average British family and a father seeing a child once every two weeks isn't a meaningful relationship."
For modern fathers, expecting and expected to be far more involved with childcare than perhaps their own fathers were, it can come as an enormous shock when they hit a legal system running on a whole different set of presumptions.
"One weekend in a fortnight is what's commonly awarded and it's not a meaningful time," said Adrienne Burgess, director of research at the Fatherhood Institute. "It allows fathers to drift out of their children's lives. If we want to keep men in children's lives we might have to work a lot harder. High-quality relationships with their mother and their father is what is successful for children after separation. Having one without the other doesn't help them much."
But Burgess makes the point that shared parenting requires more than just more enlightened judges. "It's interesting that in the past 30 years, men's involvement with their children has gone up 800-fold, but there are fewer father-headed lone-parent families than ever as it's overwhelmingly mums who get the children.
"The courts may prioritise mothers to a ridiculous extent, but it's also going to be hard for us women to give up. True shared parenting means not getting your own way, which is tough. When the child might not run to you first at the school gate, that's hard," said Burgess.
Without doubt the present system seems to be serving no one very well and certainly not men like Paul. He received an up-to-date photograph of his children a few months ago, posted anonymously. "I'd like to think it was my wife," he said. "She knows we both love them like nobody else ever can."
HIGH-PROFILE COMBATANTS IN THE CUSTODY WARS
Sir Bob Geldof who had a protracted custody battle with his ex-wife, the late Paula Yates"There's this emptiness, this utter loneliness, and you ask, What have I done? Why has this happened? The despair of going to the door that was your home, the door to this thing that locked away the crap of the world and having to knock and hearing their laughter inside... And this life that was yours a week ago. That is their home, your home, this is your family, and now you have to knock and ask can you come in. And when you're with your children, it's not like, 'Great, I've got three hours with my children', it's 'There's a second gone, there's another second gone' – and all the time it's the going, it's not the being-with. This is the thing that destroys people."
Author Louis de Bernières after his partner Cathy Gill left taking the couple's two children, Robin, five, and Sophie, two
"It was really dreadful. The worst thing, practically, was finding the house so quiet because it was always so full of laughter and rampaging and stampeding. The emotional desolation is hard to describe. There were many times when I felt suicidal."
Writer Tim Lott
"Parting from my wife, Sarina, and children Ruby and Cissy in 1999, left me with too many agonising memories to count. The lonely weekends in the parks alone with other sad single dads. The lies I told my children in order to reassure them – 'Isn't it wonderful – you're going to have two homes instead of just one'. The memory that sticks in my mind is of Ruby, then seven years old, running after my car screaming for me to come back after my designated weekend was over. That image – of her running down the street after me, as I stared at her diminishing image in my rear-view mirror – still replays in my head."
Writer William Leith, who is now back with his partner
"I remember the weekends. Going to pick my son up on a Saturday morning. I remember walking down the drive of the house where my son lived, where my ex lived, where I had lived. The anxious moments on the doorstep. The sudden, terrifying thought that I might have come at the wrong time, or on the wrong day.
"My son! There was always a rush of emotion, a balloon expanding in my chest. As a father, when you are separated from your child, you feel vulnerable, even if you see him a lot. It's the separation. It's the sense of not belonging.
"You stand on the doorstep, and you hear your son's voice, and you feel two things, the tremendous rush of love for your son existing inside the hollow pang of separation."
Sunday, February 6, 2011
James' Story
I think that occasionally a real story about the bias found in family courtrooms is important to highlight exactly how far it can go. In this story, not even multiple jail sentences could sway the judge to change custody from the mother to the father. I've inserted a few comments that you can identify by their vivid PURPLE type.
This is *James' story...
Nearly 10 years ago a little girl was born. Then her brother was born. And shortly after that started a custody battle fought over 6 years. The family courts repeatedly held the mother in contempt for defying their ordered visitation schedule. They sentenced her to jail on three different occasions. She never sat a single day in a jail cell and still retains full custody of both children.
The following timeline provides you with a synopsis of their father’s fight:
April 2001--Carrie born
March 2002--Curt born
In the spring of 2003, James was scheduled to go appear before a judge to finalize a court ordered visitation schedule for his two children. However, James' job required that he testify in Supreme Court on the same day as his custody hearing. Despite letting the courts know of the conflict, the judge declared that his absence indicated a lack of commitment. The court order handed down in James' absence granted full custody to Donna with James to have visitation completely at her discretion.
March 2002--Curt born
In the spring of 2003, James was scheduled to go appear before a judge to finalize a court ordered visitation schedule for his two children. However, James' job required that he testify in Supreme Court on the same day as his custody hearing. Despite letting the courts know of the conflict, the judge declared that his absence indicated a lack of commitment. The court order handed down in James' absence granted full custody to Donna with James to have visitation completely at her discretion.
(James knows now what he didn't know then. 1. Make sure you have your own attorney and 2. Never trust your opponent's attorney. I wonder what would have happened if James had been able to be at this first court date.)
In the spring of 2004, Donna agreed to a temporary order that would be reviewed and finalized in court in the fall. When the fall rolled around, the court date was delayed due to a Department of Social Services (DSS) allegation that James was using crack and molesting his daughter Carrie. James was barred from contacting the children.
In the spring of 2004, Donna agreed to a temporary order that would be reviewed and finalized in court in the fall. When the fall rolled around, the court date was delayed due to a Department of Social Services (DSS) allegation that James was using crack and molesting his daughter Carrie. James was barred from contacting the children.
Six months later, in May 2005, DSS had cleared James of all allegations and they all went back to court to determine the new visitation schedule. Prior to court, James, Donna, and their lawyers are able to set up a visitation schedule for the next several months that everyone agrees upon.
(A father never fully recovers from false abuse allegations. In my opinion this is one of the worst, underhanded "tricks" that an ex can pull. The effects of an allegation are far reaching - it’s never just a small issue. You can lose your job, your home and your friends. More blog posts on this to come.)
One month later, the children meet James’ girlfriend, Jane. Donna stops all visitations between James and the children.
Three months later in September 2005 both parties go back to court and a judge hears both sides of the story. He puts down a new order that says that James is to provide Donna with a two-week notice when he wants to see the kids. If Donna has no pre-existing obligation, James gets visitation with the children.
(I question the judge's sanity at this point. It’s been two and 1/2 years and Donna hasn't exactly been cooperative or forthcoming with the children. Now all of a sudden she's going to change that behavior?)
For the next seven months James requests to see the children dozens of times. Donna allows him to pick them up for a few hours on five occasions. She refuses any overnight visitation.
In April 2006, James proposes to Jane. When word gets back to Donna, she goes crazy and refuses to let James see the children for 7 months until November 2006 when he is finally allowed to spend one afternoon with the children. James, Jane, Carrie and Curt go to the park and have a wonderful time.
In April 2006, James proposes to Jane. When word gets back to Donna, she goes crazy and refuses to let James see the children for 7 months until November 2006 when he is finally allowed to spend one afternoon with the children. James, Jane, Carrie and Curt go to the park and have a wonderful time.
Finally, in December 2006 Jane decides to see if she can help and calls Donna in desperation to try to agree to get her to modify the court order so that there is a set visitation schedule, rather than the back and forth of James requesting and Donna denying. Donna finally agrees to every other weekend visitation and a judge signs off on that order in January 2007.
(Jane is a saint. I don't know many women who would put themselves in the line of fire like she did. I'm not sure how she did it, but she must have had the angels on her side when she got Donna to agree.)
Things go well until August when James, Jane, Carrie and Curt go on their first family vacation. When the children return home to Donna she immediately halts visitation, claiming the children have declared they don't want to visit James anymore.
(Typical - if the children have fun then visitation can't be allowed. Angry mothers want that anger to extend into angry children. That is very sad.)
A month later, a judge holds Donna in contempt for denying visitations and orders her to pay James’ attorney's fees and gives her a suspended jail sentence.
(I asked. She ended up paying around $1,000. Four and 1/2 years and the only consequence is about $1,000.)
Four months later in January 2008 Curt is available for James' visitation schedule, but Carrie starts missing visitations again.
It takes six more months until July 2008 for another court date. James asks the judge for custody. Instead, the judge amends the court order and gives James more time with the kids, but Donna retains custody. The judge also holds Donna in contempt for the second time, orders her to give up 15 of her weekends to James for the missed visitation and a second suspended jail sentence.
(What is going through the judge's mind at this point? That it's better to keep the status quo? How many chances does this mother get before the judge realizes that status quo is NOT WORKING?)
It's now October 2008 and James' has been fighting for five and 1/2 years for a chance to see his children regularly. Once again, they are back in court and Donna is held in contempt for a third time. Her behavior at the exchanges when James' would pick up the children would incite drama. The judge had ordered her to not be present at the exchanges, but she did not comply.
Over the next two months, the children find out James and Jane are having a baby. When Donna finds out the exchanges hit rock bottom. James is now taking a police officer with him to exchanges; Carrie refuses to go and runs from everyone including the officer. Donna calls DSS again and claims that James’ house is unsafe. DSS investigates, refutes her allegations and tells Donna to comply with the court order. Donna refuses to sign their findings and stomps out of the DSS office.
It’s now February 2009 and they are back to court again. Donna is found in contempt for the fourth time in a year and a half. The judge orders her to spend her weekends in jail, but subsequently ends up once again changing his order to suspend her sentence.
It’s now February 2009 and they are back to court again. Donna is found in contempt for the fourth time in a year and a half. The judge orders her to spend her weekends in jail, but subsequently ends up once again changing his order to suspend her sentence.
“And so here we are. February 2011. Twenty-four months of uninterrupted visitations. Two summers of having 50/50 custody. Our son was born, and Donna didn't spontaneously combust. The kids love and adore James, and I daresay they're pretty fond of me too. Their little brother thinks they're demi-gods, and I think that they would skin graft him onto their backs if they could. Things are good, but five minutes after a scheduled pick-up, I am texting James, "You get them okay?"
I don't know that we'll ever be able to fully relax. We worry about the kids constantly. I am 100% confident that their grades would skyrocket if they lived over here. But we have fought and fought and fought until we are battle-weary. I don't know if we will have strength enough for tomorrow's battle, whatever it may be. Every time something comes up, I think that I can't do it again. I don't have enough strength left to fight again. But so far, we keep on fighting. We look at them and we find the strength from somewhere. I pray we continue to find the strength. But more so, I pray that we won't need it.”
*Names have been changed to protect the family.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
You don't NEED a dad...
Here is the bad thing about doing research on hot topics like this one...you find a whole bunch of websites that you don't really want to expose as even existing, but have to divulge in order to respond to their idiocy conclusions about fathers.
I found one such website...it's fodder for many a blogpost to come. The Liz Library just can't say enough about how completely unnecessary a father is. Except, of course, for that sticky little subject of the actual conception of a child, according to The Liz Library a father is pretty much unnecessary to the health and well-being of any child. Got it dads? We simply don't need you.
As I read just a sampling of articles and comments that Elizabeth J. Kates, Attorney at Law has compiled I felt like I was one of those cartoon characters who starts to get hot under the collar...skin flushed...the red creeping up my neck...puffs of steam shooting out of my ears until I clicked on the link where I discovered she actually has a RADIO SHOW where she publicly makes the kind of comments I was reading...
...and my head exploded.
So, without further ado - Ms. Kates has compiled a large list of successful people who grew up in father-absent homes to support her claims of your (and dads...I'm talking to you, here) complete and utterly useless existence in your child's life.
Lets start with the Presidents of the United States...the list is long and as I clicked on the name of each one a very striking trend began to appear...
U.S. President Gen. George Washington - father died
U.S. President Thomas Jefferson - father died
U.S. President James Monroe - father died
U.S. President Andrew Jackson - father died
U.S. President Andrew Johnson - father died
U.S. President Rutherford B. Hayes - father died
U.S. President James A. Garfield - father died
U.S. President Grover Cleveland - father died
U.S. President Herbert Hoover - father died
U.S. President Gerald Ford - abusive father
U.S. President William Jefferson Clinton - father died
U.S. President Barack Obama - parents divorced
Hmmmm....Just for fun I interviewed President General George Washington and got his take on all this.
Me: So, Mr. President...when your father died at age 10 were you relieved that you no longer had this useless man in your life and could fulfill your great destiny as the father of our country?
Gen. Washington: Errr...No. I missed him terribly and cried my eyes out nightly. But I always remembered what he'd had a chance to teach me in those 10 years of life that I got to spend with him.
Me: Oh...well you must attribute your ability to achieve great things due to the close relationship you had with your mother. Because, we all know, that as long as you've got your mother and forge a close bond with her you don't need a dad.
General Washington: Errr...No. I do love my mother, but actually I was sent to live with my older half brother after my father died.
Me: Oh....well, Mr. President you aren't cooperating very well with this theory that you are a great man in part...or at the very least...despite the fact that you had no father or father figure in your life.
General Washington: Errr...well, I thought it was a stupid theory to begin with.
*crickets*
Me: So, what you're saying is that if you could have had your father in your life for your entire childhood you would have welcomed that opportunity?
General Washington: Of course...what kid doesn't want a loving father to be part of their life?
Me: Good point, Mr. President.
I know...I know...I'm being a little facetious here, but its the only way I know how to respond to what I consider absolutely ridiculous claims that a loving caring father is not an asset to a child's life and well-being.
Let me rephrase that...A loving caring father is an asset to a child's life and well-being.
How do I know this? I know this because my father was an asset to my life...actually, he still is. Oh, and my husband's father is an asset to his life and still is. And I'll bet if I start to poll the children of those men out there that really want a relationship with their kids I will find that their children can even see a reason for their dad to be around. They may express it in different ways...but ultimately the meaning behind the words is the same.
MY DAD CONTRIBUTES POSITIVELY TO MY LIFE.
A 16-year old might say, "We have fun playing basketball together."
A 10 year old might say, "He taught me how to beat the hard part in that video game."
A 6 year old might say, "He takes me out for icecream."
A 3 year old might say, "Daddy play with me."
Even President Obama, the President to have experienced a situation most similar to what many of your children are experiencing...even he said, "[My father] had left paradise, and nothing that my mother or grandparents told me could obviate that single, unassailable fact," he later reflected. "They couldn't describe what it might have been like had he stayed."
Even as a man who had achieved the most powerful position in the world, Barrack Obama sounds like a little boy who wishes with all his heart that he'd had a chance to spend time with his father.
Now if THAT doesn't speak volumes louder than the dribble offered up on Ms. Kate's radio show...I'll eat my blog.
And now I'm leaving The Liz Library, but can't help but add the best part of Ms. Kate's long list... At the very bottom in small type you find this little gem, "(Interesting, though, how "motherlessness" is almost glorified in our society, e.g. Disney.) At thelizlibrary.org, we don't "hate men". We hate lies."
ha ha ha...ho ho ho...hee hee hee...Thats a good one, Liz.
Now my parting thought...Dads...we DO need you.
I found one such website...it's fodder for many a blogpost to come. The Liz Library just can't say enough about how completely unnecessary a father is. Except, of course, for that sticky little subject of the actual conception of a child, according to The Liz Library a father is pretty much unnecessary to the health and well-being of any child. Got it dads? We simply don't need you.
As I read just a sampling of articles and comments that Elizabeth J. Kates, Attorney at Law has compiled I felt like I was one of those cartoon characters who starts to get hot under the collar...skin flushed...the red creeping up my neck...puffs of steam shooting out of my ears until I clicked on the link where I discovered she actually has a RADIO SHOW where she publicly makes the kind of comments I was reading...
...and my head exploded.
So, without further ado - Ms. Kates has compiled a large list of successful people who grew up in father-absent homes to support her claims of your (and dads...I'm talking to you, here) complete and utterly useless existence in your child's life.
Lets start with the Presidents of the United States...the list is long and as I clicked on the name of each one a very striking trend began to appear...
U.S. President Gen. George Washington - father died
U.S. President Thomas Jefferson - father died
U.S. President James Monroe - father died
U.S. President Andrew Jackson - father died
U.S. President Andrew Johnson - father died
U.S. President Rutherford B. Hayes - father died
U.S. President James A. Garfield - father died
U.S. President Grover Cleveland - father died
U.S. President Herbert Hoover - father died
U.S. President Gerald Ford - abusive father
U.S. President William Jefferson Clinton - father died
U.S. President Barack Obama - parents divorced
Hmmmm....Just for fun I interviewed President General George Washington and got his take on all this.
Me: So, Mr. President...when your father died at age 10 were you relieved that you no longer had this useless man in your life and could fulfill your great destiny as the father of our country?
Gen. Washington: Errr...No. I missed him terribly and cried my eyes out nightly. But I always remembered what he'd had a chance to teach me in those 10 years of life that I got to spend with him.
Me: Oh...well you must attribute your ability to achieve great things due to the close relationship you had with your mother. Because, we all know, that as long as you've got your mother and forge a close bond with her you don't need a dad.
General Washington: Errr...No. I do love my mother, but actually I was sent to live with my older half brother after my father died.
Me: Oh....well, Mr. President you aren't cooperating very well with this theory that you are a great man in part...or at the very least...despite the fact that you had no father or father figure in your life.
General Washington: Errr...well, I thought it was a stupid theory to begin with.
*crickets*
Me: So, what you're saying is that if you could have had your father in your life for your entire childhood you would have welcomed that opportunity?
General Washington: Of course...what kid doesn't want a loving father to be part of their life?
Me: Good point, Mr. President.
I know...I know...I'm being a little facetious here, but its the only way I know how to respond to what I consider absolutely ridiculous claims that a loving caring father is not an asset to a child's life and well-being.
Let me rephrase that...A loving caring father is an asset to a child's life and well-being.
How do I know this? I know this because my father was an asset to my life...actually, he still is. Oh, and my husband's father is an asset to his life and still is. And I'll bet if I start to poll the children of those men out there that really want a relationship with their kids I will find that their children can even see a reason for their dad to be around. They may express it in different ways...but ultimately the meaning behind the words is the same.
MY DAD CONTRIBUTES POSITIVELY TO MY LIFE.
A 16-year old might say, "We have fun playing basketball together."
A 10 year old might say, "He taught me how to beat the hard part in that video game."
A 6 year old might say, "He takes me out for icecream."
A 3 year old might say, "Daddy play with me."
Even President Obama, the President to have experienced a situation most similar to what many of your children are experiencing...even he said, "[My father] had left paradise, and nothing that my mother or grandparents told me could obviate that single, unassailable fact," he later reflected. "They couldn't describe what it might have been like had he stayed."
Even as a man who had achieved the most powerful position in the world, Barrack Obama sounds like a little boy who wishes with all his heart that he'd had a chance to spend time with his father.
Now if THAT doesn't speak volumes louder than the dribble offered up on Ms. Kate's radio show...I'll eat my blog.
And now I'm leaving The Liz Library, but can't help but add the best part of Ms. Kate's long list... At the very bottom in small type you find this little gem, "(Interesting, though, how "motherlessness" is almost glorified in our society, e.g. Disney.) At thelizlibrary.org, we don't "hate men". We hate lies."
ha ha ha...ho ho ho...hee hee hee...Thats a good one, Liz.
Now my parting thought...Dads...we DO need you.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
This is why I care...
Today I read about a friend's custody fight that ended in a miserable lack of anything closely resembling justice and realized that my years of sedentary standing by were done. I've had enough. I've been saying for years...actually for the past seven years...that I was going to figure out a way to get my voice heard and maybe...possibly...someday...be a catalyst for real changes in the family court system.
I'm a writer...I'm a blogger. I feel like I can express myself best via the written word. And there just isn't enough places for father's to tell their painful stories of being legally pushed out of their children's lives.
And so I started Your Father's Fight. I called it that so that if ever a child or product of divorce were to happen upon this website they might wonder if their own absent father didn't try this hard to find them, see them, parent them, nurture them, love them. They might wonder what kind of legal system would advocate an absent father in the life of a child.
I am not an advocate of "dead beat dads." I am not an advocate of abusers...emotional, physical or otherwise. I am not here to tell mothers they should give up their children. What I am here to say is that a child has a right to both parents...and both parents have a right to love and spend time with and share in the life of that child.
My qualifications to speak out on this are simply that I am a child product of divorce. I have a brother and five sisters and all of them are also products or children of divorce. I have three parents. I have a mother and a stepfather and a father. And I'm finally at a point in my life where I'm not angry, harboring resentment or feeling guilty about loving each and every one of them.
I am a wife. More specifically, I am a second wife to a man who was married to someone else for 13 years.
I am a mother. I have a beautiful little girl who has enriched my life in ways I never imagined.
I am a stepmother.
I have a stepdaughter who lives with me and her father. I have two additional stepchildren who live with their mother. I have personally written the checks out that resulted in tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and court costs to help my husband fight for his right to see his children.
I have been called every name in the book by the ex-wife. I have had my stepchildren call me every name in the book courtesy of the ex-wife. I now enjoy a truce...and mostly peaceful existence with this same ex-wife.
I have watched my husband sob out his heartache at the court rulings that refuse to give him access to his children and demand that he pay more child support while simultaneously taking away visitation.
I have watched his children bound into his arms during visitation and sob out their heartache that they can't see him more often and I have seen these same children refuse to visit him on the few days per month the courts ruled were sufficient for him because now, suddenly, they are supposed to be afraid of their father.
I have been investigated (as has my husband) by child protective services based on lies and false accusations. And I have had child protective services clear our records with a shake of their head and a muttered, "So many children who are really in trouble. Why am I the lackey for bitter exes?"
I have an enormous network of friends...men and women...who have had similar experiences and who all agree that something should be done...but all feel powerless to actually do anything about it.
This is a blog that I hope opens the minds of people worldwide to stop and think about the real victims of the current flow of family court bias... It's not the mother, and it's not the father...it's ALWAYS the child.
I'm a writer...I'm a blogger. I feel like I can express myself best via the written word. And there just isn't enough places for father's to tell their painful stories of being legally pushed out of their children's lives.
And so I started Your Father's Fight. I called it that so that if ever a child or product of divorce were to happen upon this website they might wonder if their own absent father didn't try this hard to find them, see them, parent them, nurture them, love them. They might wonder what kind of legal system would advocate an absent father in the life of a child.
I am not an advocate of "dead beat dads." I am not an advocate of abusers...emotional, physical or otherwise. I am not here to tell mothers they should give up their children. What I am here to say is that a child has a right to both parents...and both parents have a right to love and spend time with and share in the life of that child.
My qualifications to speak out on this are simply that I am a child product of divorce. I have a brother and five sisters and all of them are also products or children of divorce. I have three parents. I have a mother and a stepfather and a father. And I'm finally at a point in my life where I'm not angry, harboring resentment or feeling guilty about loving each and every one of them.
I am a wife. More specifically, I am a second wife to a man who was married to someone else for 13 years.
I am a mother. I have a beautiful little girl who has enriched my life in ways I never imagined.
I am a stepmother.
I have a stepdaughter who lives with me and her father. I have two additional stepchildren who live with their mother. I have personally written the checks out that resulted in tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and court costs to help my husband fight for his right to see his children.
I have been called every name in the book by the ex-wife. I have had my stepchildren call me every name in the book courtesy of the ex-wife. I now enjoy a truce...and mostly peaceful existence with this same ex-wife.
I have watched my husband sob out his heartache at the court rulings that refuse to give him access to his children and demand that he pay more child support while simultaneously taking away visitation.
I have watched his children bound into his arms during visitation and sob out their heartache that they can't see him more often and I have seen these same children refuse to visit him on the few days per month the courts ruled were sufficient for him because now, suddenly, they are supposed to be afraid of their father.
I have been investigated (as has my husband) by child protective services based on lies and false accusations. And I have had child protective services clear our records with a shake of their head and a muttered, "So many children who are really in trouble. Why am I the lackey for bitter exes?"
I have an enormous network of friends...men and women...who have had similar experiences and who all agree that something should be done...but all feel powerless to actually do anything about it.
This is a blog that I hope opens the minds of people worldwide to stop and think about the real victims of the current flow of family court bias... It's not the mother, and it's not the father...it's ALWAYS the child.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)